Should the government makes drugs once they're off patent?

#26
#26
Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea. Off patent drugs can be produced and sold at cost if done by the government, becoming a public good.


You’re a damn fool, and you keep proving it over and over again. The less the government does, the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOUCHDOWN!!TN
#29
#29
Should the federal government manufacture genetic drugs (or anything else for that matter)? No!!! That is full blown socialism. But Congress and the FDA are supposed to be providing oversight. Either there is an anti-trust issue or it really is costing a lot to make the high priced, off patent drugs. Teva and Viatris (formerly Mylan and a piece of Pfizer) and giant pharma divisions are about the only players that I’m aware of. I guess off-patent and generic aren’t exactly the same thing. Generics can be licensed from the patent holder before expiration.

Mutually owned companies are a better idea than a socialist federal government. REI is one in outdoor equipment retailing. Vanguard Group is a great financial institution organized as a mutual. There are dozens of well known insurance companies that are mutually owned by the customers.

The problem is the scale of Big Pharma. There are more $100 billion plus market cap drug companies (and health insurance companies) than any other industry. They are extremely powerful. United Health, Johnson and Johnson, Ely Lilly, Pfizer, Abbvie, Novo Nordisk, Merck, and Astra Zeneca are all $200 billion plus. Abbott, Novartis, Bristol-Meyer, Amgen, Sanofi, CVS, Anthem, and Glaxo are all over $100B. For comparison, Target Corporation is under $70 billion. Big Pharma is more powerful than most countries. Maybe every country.

BTW, Teva is $8 billion and Viatris is $13 billion. The big money is with the drug developers.
 

VN Store



Back
Top